2016 (11) TMI 920 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Clandestine removal - non-accountal in their statutory records - Held that - It is a evidence on records that on 1-10-2010, the search was conducted and seized goods were not accounted in the statutory records by the appellant. But the Revenue has not come with any positive evidence that the said goods are meant for clandestine clearance by the appellant. In that circumstances, goods cannot be confiscated. As these goods are meant for clearance to M/s. Giovani Fashions Ltd. and for export. Further, it is also an evidence on the records that at the end of M/s. Giovani Fashions Ltd. during search nothing incriminating was found. In that circumstances, without any corroborative evidence, it cannot be alleged that these goods are meant for clandestine clearance by the appellant. Therefore, I hold that goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty are not imposable on the appellant - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The case involved a search conducted at the factory premises of the appellant on two occasions, leading to the discovery of unaccounted goods. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of duty and penalty. The appellant contested the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, arguing that the goods were cleared on payment of duty without any malicious intent to evade payment. The appellant challenged the confiscation of goods and the consequential redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal noted that while the seized goods were not accounted for in the statutory records, there was no concrete evidence of clandestine clearance by the appellant. It was observed that the goods were intended for clearance to another entity and for export, with no incriminating evidence found during a search at the recipient's premises. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in cases involving confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. It underscores the need for corroborative evidence to establish allegations of clandestine activities and the significance of intent in determining the liability for redemption fine and penalty. The decision showcases the Tribunal's adherence to legal principles and the requirement for a strong evidentiary basis to support punitive actions in matters of customs and excise violations.